I never said that IE is super-well-working app. FF doesn't display some things well. I really don't care who's fault it is. I'm an end-user of the app, so the app must work OK. If the app doesn't work OK, then I don't use the app. On IE everything looks well.

Works just fine.  Been using it for many months.

Clicking MMB  on a link opens it in new tab.

No, it says "Uncheck "Work Offline" in the File menu, then try again."

I meant the button. The button says "try again", but it doesn't do anything except of displaying the same thing again. I have to disable offline mode in the menu. IE asks you whether you want it to disable it for you. Good interface = the app does clever things for you. BAD UI = the app doesn't do anything for you. Ultra bad UI = the app does something stupid for you. Happily FF is not ultra bad :P

"Save As..." or get the free extension.

as I've said earlier, I don't like the idea of downloading additional stuf to make something work.

Oh, and I'm using version 1.5 (the screens are from the 1.0.7 version if I recall, but it's same in 1.5)

As for the stardards: A standard is one of many possible way to do something, but some ppl call this way "the proper one". Standards are good, but besides the standards, there are also other ways. As there's no "objective good", there's no "objectively good way of doing something". Saying that world lags because of MS is like saying that world lags because not everyone drives the fastest car possible. MS is doing things otherways. Maybe it's not the standard way, but it IS a way. I can go and say FF is bad, because it doesn't suport MS's "standard". Why not? Because minority (majority uses IE, as for now) says that MS is not standard? I thought that standard is something that majority does, not something minority calls a standard. MS was doing things its way. Now comes FF and doesn't display things correctly saing that it's doing the standards. I'm not trying to defend MS (despite it may look like this) - I just don't like the explainations like "if the mechanic screws up his job, blame parts producer, not him". FF displays things inconsistently to OS, FF displays some things faultly, WHILE ie displays everything ok, consistenlty with OS, 3d, and 'nice'. If IE can support these "bugged" pages _AND_ the "super standard" pages, so why "BETTER" FF cannot? I think that's because of ppl who write something and when it doesn't work, they blame someone other. now FF programmers would probably blame the page for the incorrect look. Software sould be prepared for ALL possibilities (it's called "writing a good software"). So if ppl can blame MS for Win9x crashing (while it was crashing mainly because of faulty apps/drivers/etc, only rare crashes were because of the bugged OS itself), so I can blame FF for incorrectness and bad UI.

Rigth now i've found another bug:
1) activate offline mode
2) close FF
3) open FF
4) now it's saying that it's in offline mode (what is correct)
5) you can enter any onlne page ragardless of point 4
6) you can surf the entirte net by typing the address
7) clicking a link makes it recall that it's in offline mode, so from now on you can't surf the net.

It's not the first bug I found, and not the last one, I think. As I've said: you can believe me, or not.

So to sum: IE does some things in one way (which ppl call "bad way") and FF (and probably other browsers) do some things in other way (which ppl call "standard way"). I like that there are standards in the world, but good software supports both the standards and non-standards, and (for me) IE supports both, while FF is bugged, has bad UI, and looks bad. I don't care which 1 is good -- IE is better for me. When ppl buy cars they don't necessarily buy the fastest/least fuel consuming/safest cars -- they usually buy a "nice" one, which "supports" few things they are going to use. They don't care whether the car has "super-duper-xuiewh7u83-mega" system if they're not going to use it, but they really complain if the car doesn't have something they want to use frequently. Good car is not the one which looks best on paper - it's the one which meets end-users subjective criteria. That's why there are so many of them. And that's why IE is not impeding the technology in any way, because slow cars don't impede fast cars. They can coexist IF the 'standard' coders stop blaming MS for their own every mistake. I'm not a fan of MS myself, but I don't say "it's MS's fault" to the customers of my apps -- I just fix the errors quickly.

Posted on 2005-12-02 08:42:51 by ti_mo_n
If the app doesn't work OK, then I don't use the app.
Then why are you using IE?  IE doesn't work right.  For example, google for "box model".  Many pages that were coded for IE don't display correctly in FF because IE doesn't display boxes correctly.  So they tweak the code to make it work in IE.  But the code is broken to make it work in IE.  FF displays the broken code and people think FF is broken when it is IE that is in the wrong.  If the code is written in proper html/css, it would work in FF but IE would display incorrectly.  This is why the Firefox slogan is "Take back the web."  IE breaks the web.

MS is NOT a standard.  The standard is written by the W3C consortium.  Microsoft is a member of the W3C and supports it.  MS has stated they will continue to make IE get better at the W3C standard.  So MS also states that the standard IS the W3C and not Microsoft.  As Microsoft gets better at standards, then the same page you now claim doesn't work under FF, will not work under IE either.  In fact, IE7 improvements will break many web pages now on the net that DO work in FF because they use common hacks such as '*', underline, holly hack, and so on.  The big talk on the web is what are all these site to do.  They relied on these IE hacks to make their pages work and, in March, the hacks won't work.  They will have to start coding to...now pay attention...the original W3C standard written in 1998!  Firefox has always worked with these standards. 

MS has joined WASP, a 3rd party web standards support organization in order to learn how to make IE better at W3C standards.  So, again, MS acknowledges the W3C as the standard and, remember, they are a member of the W3C also.

So while you may wish to stick with IE because you think it works better, you will soon find how bad IE is.  If your code works in FF then chances are it will work in all browsers.  If you code for IE then chances are it will only work in IE.  The mantra of web design is "Design for Firefox to make your code work.  Then adjust it for IEs quirks and bugs." 
Posted on 2005-12-02 09:28:19 by drhowarddrfine
it's the one which meets end-users subjective criteria.

But if you press on the gas and the car slows down instead of speeding up, isn't that the fault of the manufacturer?  (Google for "box model hack" where you will see IE does not display text boxes properly due to an error in their code.)

And that's why IE is not impeding the technology in any way, because slow cars don't impede fast cars.
You cannot use XML or XHTML on web sites because IE does not display it.  You cannot use SVG graphics because it doesn't work on IE.  You cannot use CSS2 or CSS3 because it does not work on IE.  All of those things work in FF and Opera.  Now, tell me how IE does not impede web technology.
Posted on 2005-12-02 09:33:56 by drhowarddrfine
Unfortunately, I am going out of town until Monday or so.  For more on the IE mess read No, IE didn't handle that properly and Explorer Exposed!  These are two well known references for web designers but there are many, many more.  There are no similar sites for Firefox or Opera or any other browser. 
Posted on 2005-12-02 09:38:11 by drhowarddrfine
But if you press on the gas and the car slows down instead of speeding up, isn't that the fault of the manufacturer?

You're right, but this ALSO doesn't meet the subjective criteria. The subjective criteria is what drives the majority. IF somene wanted it to slow down while pushing the gas, then such car is ok, regardless of whether it is faulty or not.

You cannot use XML or XHTML on web sites because IE does not display it.  You cannot use SVG graphics because it doesn't work on IE.  You cannot use CSS2 or CSS3 because it does not work on IE.  All of those things work in FF and Opera.  Now, tell me how IE does not impede web technology.

Well you can. You can't only in HTML. Apache reports to PHP what browser has requested the page (this is only 1 of many many possibilities. you can even go and write your own server and own html if you're not satisfied). There always are "other ways", like there are roads for slow cars and roads for fast cars.

I never said that IE is working according to a standard way. I just said that IE works for me, but FF doesn't. The metaphore with the "MS's standard" was to show, that applications (like FF) should be prepared to support every possible situation - not just the standard one. IE supports everything I use, so it meets my subjective criteria - that's all. I'd like to state clearly: I know about all the "MS not being standard" stuff, I'm not MS fan, I don't try to defent MS in ANY way. IE has everything _I_ need and that's why _I_ use it. In previous posts i pointed why I use IE and why I can't use FF. nothing more. Thank you for the conversation ;) I hope no offence has been taken.
Posted on 2005-12-02 10:09:15 by ti_mo_n
Start a trend, get enough web pages that force you to download and install something other than IE.
Posted on 2005-12-02 18:43:26 by SpooK
Ask and ye shall receive, Spook:  Explorer Destroyer

I went out of town but came back tonight instead of staying till Monday.
Posted on 2005-12-02 20:38:39 by drhowarddrfine
OMG - I just had a deja vu.

IE users will see a friendly message stating that they eed to download and install Firefox to view your site.

Didn't people try that around 10 years ago? And all they did was block themselves from the web?

Posted on 2005-12-02 21:06:26 by JimmyClif
well, now FF is very "trendy" and it's "cool" to use it. and you're more "cool" when you put some "fcuk bill" slogans.

oh geez, now they're trying to buy the users... LOL  'how low will they go'? door to door selling? :lol:
Posted on 2005-12-02 21:29:59 by ti_mo_n
Riiight, this just prooves that the FF users are a crazy bunch. Kill Bill's Browser... Man, how childish.

Take back the web... wow. If that's the way to create a new standard. Get a subpar app and force people to use it because it's cooler, free-er, faster, safer. And then they can't even take critics.

Fact is that FF is pretty useless as it comes out of the box. Without tons of extensions FF is very limited.
Fact is that FF is extremly slow. Get it to it's knees by loading a hmtl site with around 100+ pictures each a couple 100 kbs in size staked one under the other and try scrolling.

I had Firefox installed for a couple months - I actually installed it on every computer in the office to improve security issues. Most people went back to IE inwithin days. I am also glad I uninstalled it. Firefox used to crash maybe once a day for me. Mostly related to the Gmail notifer from Google. When I clicked the icon it fired up FF and then FF closed itself after a well the usual loading times. The FF download manager (pfft) used to drive me nuts. Even with extensions it was way below any expectations I had. And lately the Adblock extension conflicted with active x controls and refused to play any content. I always had to disable the adblocker (Through the menu/Adblock/Checkbox/Disable) to view that content. And then reenable it (Through the menu/Adblock/Checkbox/Enable). Insane.

Well, anyways. Use your FF. Call it your web. Believe the propaganda. ;) Viva la revolution. Down with Microsoft. Betov in the house. Whoooooooo.

Posted on 2005-12-02 21:39:19 by JimmyClif
One thing about "impeding the technology":


The page looks nice, IMHO and it doesn't require anything except simple HTML + JavaScript. There's animation (no GIFs - only changing the JPG frames in realtime), background sound. The page prealoads before displaing. There's a progressbar below the image and IE's status bar puts dots "." for every loaded percent. It took me a week to make it from start to finish (coded in notepad if anyone wonders). try brightening your monitor if you can't see the 'burning' eyes or vinyls' animations.

It doesn't work on FF which is supposed to support more than IE.

It also is "protected" from linking, so copy and paste the link in new window.

The web site (on client side) is supposed to be good looking, have nice UI, and be fast (so it needs to be small). The whole thing at the above address is 775 KB. So I ask: what do you need those "SVG", "XHTML", "CSS3" for? And why the "better" FF doesn't support JavaScript?
Posted on 2005-12-02 22:15:21 by ti_mo_n
Easy.  You didn't use javascript.  You used Microsofts non-standard version called JScript.  Not even the ECMA recognizes JScript.  But it can be close enough to real javascript to work so let's analyze a bit further. 

Your javascript prints code that only works in IE.  It won't work in Firefox or Safari or Opera or any other browser in the world.  So Apple users can't view it nor Unix nor Linux nor anyone who doesn't use the IE browser.  Even Windows users can't view it if they don't use the IE browser.  If you want to cheat like that, I can use Mozilla code that won't work in the IE browser and then I can complain that IE can't view it.  I can also complain that IE can't render code from XUL.  It works both ways. 

You use "scrollbar-arrow-color", for example.  This is not an html code or attribute or even CSS.  It isn't published anywhere on any standard or document except Microsofts.  Some of your border coloring is also not used by any other browsers.Again, I can say "why doesn't IE render any of Mozilla/FF/XUL attributes" and complain about the same thing you do.  If IE is so high and might why can't it do that? 

Better yet, if IE is so wonderful, why can't it properly handle the Document Object Model (DOM) standard written in 1998?  Why can't it handle CSS1, the very core of modern design, written in 1999?  Or HTML 4.01, the very core of todays web page?  Firefox can.  Opera can.  Safari can.  Flock, which is still in beta, can.  Even Lynx, a text only browser, does a better job at handling html than IE does! 

Why do web designers have a whole term related to writing code for IE called 'quirks' mode.  It came about because IE created (the aforementioned) box model problem.  IE thinks boxes around text have margins and padding on the inside while every other browser in the world put margin and paddings on the outside of the box.  This has screwed every designer since IE came out and, even today, I go to web design forums where we correct new designers on this problem more than once every single day! 

Another one.  Every web browser in the world knows that floated div elements only contain their own content and not the content of other divs.  IE is the only web browser that does this wrong and stretches its divs to contain ALL content.  So we've had to create a new method just because of IE called "clearing floats".  This is another famous IE bug that screws more designers 'every single day' and possibly more than the box model bug.  No other browser gets this wrong!

You want more?  The links I gave you above talk about the many bugs, acknowledged as bugs by MS, a few fixed in IE7.  These are bugs in code used by designers every day but they are NOT bugs in any other browser.  Only IE has these problems.  So designers have to code twice.  Once for every browser in the world according to standards and a second time only for IEs quirks and bugs.  If IE didn't have the bugs, coders would only have to code once! 
Posted on 2005-12-02 23:26:32 by drhowarddrfine
Initially, I also didn't like FF, I think I had tried 1.0 beta. Several times I installed it and uninstalled in 10 minutes - for my K6-2 450MHz: 64MB: GeForce2  it was damn slow. Yet, when I got my current PC, the speed difference wasn't much obvious anymore. But still FF looked damn ugly. Added themes and extentions, and when I found out I can search text+links in pages with just directly typing - it was enough reason for me to switch. If IE ever supports this and tabbing, I'm sure to switch back.
A site with 100+ 200kB imgs is insane - only someone as lazy as me could come up with it :)
And btw I like Microsoft a lot, I don't have any revolution thoughts :) . Felt great a couple of days ago when I had 700 licensed CDs of theirs in my hands (MSDN subscription and full-version licenses for non-commercial use for students in my uni).
Btw, "kill bill" was one of the worst movies ever -  and one of the 3 movies I completely regret having seen. Can't understand the franchise for it with anything but "brainwash".
Posted on 2005-12-03 01:07:31 by Ultrano
Hi, drhowarddrfinedrhoward

The difference is that I've NEVER said that IE is 'cool' or 'better' or whatever, while you said that IE doesn't support this and that. So I asked why the better browsers can't support cool things I've used? I personally think it's lazyness, because if I were to write a browser I wouldn't really care about standards - I'd just implement in it as much as possible (make it support everything) and then and only then call my browser "the best" of all.

You said that it won't work on other browsers. Why other browsers don't support something realy useful, but try to make people think that useless things are super-duper necessary to "retake the web back"? the conclusion is that starndard = lots of useless things. I prefer non-standards then (As I've demonstrated: you can write a nice looking page with really simple html and javascript. even if you wanted something more advanced, then there are java applets. and finally - you can use Flash).
Posted on 2005-12-03 05:51:30 by ti_mo_n
Like I said, too, you can write really cool things using mozilla and XUL only code but it won't work on IE.

On the street poll/interviews.
Posted on 2005-12-03 09:06:19 by drhowarddrfine
could someone move this thread to the "flamewars" board pleeze! Or even better, to the "kindergarten" board!
Posted on 2005-12-03 09:06:51 by japheth
Done  ;)

But I am really glad that our posters are very mature.
Posted on 2005-12-03 09:26:28 by roticv
the "kindergarten" board!
It's interesting you should say that.  This used to be a hot topic on the web designer boards by both the pros and the hobbyists, the topic has died down when everyone realized the design issues I've laid out here.  It is no longer a "kindergarten" subject as new designers are instructed on this very topic and rarely do we have an "IE is better" thread from anyone.  In fact, this is still a hot subject on Microsofts IEBlog even today as MS has confessed to its problems with IE and the discussion continues on how they intend to improve it and move towards standards compliance.  So you can't call this a "crusade" when the manufacturer themselves agree.
Posted on 2005-12-03 12:58:08 by drhowarddrfine
PS:  While I strongly disagree with ti_mo_n on this subject, I hardly think we have flamed.
Posted on 2005-12-03 12:59:49 by drhowarddrfine
Same here ;) Nevertheless the topic deserved "the crusaders" board  ^_^"
Posted on 2005-12-03 13:20:27 by ti_mo_n